EX-CONSTABLE JHIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, while impugned the judgments under appeal contended that the learned courts below could not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff either on merits or for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds : - (a) the learned trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, as no cause of action or part thereof had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the said court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ex -Major Gurnam Singh v. Union of India, 1994(3 SCT 386 (P&H) : 1994(4) S.L.R. 76, (b) the order discharging the appellant -plaintiff in the suit was an order of discharge simplicitor under the Punjab Police Rule 12.21 and, as such, the finding recorded by the learned courts below are correct. Reliance was placed upon Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sher Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1994(3) SCT 1 (P&H)(FB) : 1994(2) S.L.R. 100.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the merits of these contentions, reference to basic facts would be necessary.